Obstruction?

[tarheelcoach]

Situation - NFHS game. Bottom 8, visitors up by one. R3, one out. Ground ball to SS, who throws home. Catcher blocks R3, THEN catches throw and tags runner out. Runner never got to home plate.
Now, this call went my team's way, so I'm certainly not complaining. But I thought it looked like obstruction, but when I came home and re-read the rules, I wasn't quite sure.
The rule states that obstruction is "when a runner is obstructed while advancing by a fielder who neither has the ball nor is attempting to make a play."
When is the catcher waiting for a throw attempting to make a play? The catcher definitely semed to have blocked, then caught, then tagged. If my perspective is right, should that have been obstruction?

[LMan]

Why in the world would R3 attempt home on a ball hit to F6? Sounds like foolishness was punished.

If the play is 'imminent', its not obstruction, ie, if F2 had to be where he was in order to catch F6's throw.

'imminent' = plate umpire's judgement

[DG]

Originally Posted by tarheelcoach

Situation - NFHS game. Bottom 8, visitors up by one. R3, one out. Ground ball to SS, who throws home. Catcher blocks R3, THEN catches throw and tags runner out. Runner never got to home plate.
Now, this call went my team's way, so I'm certainly not complaining. But I thought it looked like obstruction, but when I came home and re-read the rules, I wasn't quite sure.
The rule states that obstruction is "when a runner is obstructed while advancing by a fielder who neither has the ball nor is attempting to make a play."
When is the catcher waiting for a throw attempting to make a play? The catcher definitely semed to have blocked, then caught, then tagged. If my perspective is right, should that have been obstruction?

If the catcher is making a play, ie receiving a thrown ball, and the play is imminent, he can block the plate. What is imminent you might say? A rule of thumb is the ball is in flight, directly at the catcher and in the air over the dirt cutout, which should be about 13 feet from the plate. If the catcher was where he needed to be to catch the throw and it was in flight 13 feet from the plate, then I would not rule obstruction. The block, the catch and the tag would have to be bang, bang, bang. It if was block, pause, catch, tag then maybe obstruction is the correct call.

[DG]

Originally Posted by LMan

Why in the world would R3 attempt home on a ball hit to F6? Sounds like foolishness was punished.

If the play is 'imminent', its not obstruction, ie, if F2 had to be where he was in order to catch F6's throw.

'imminent' = plate umpire's judgement

Uh, to try to score the tying run maybe? If it took an imminent play to get him then the field and throw had to be perfect.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by DG

If the catcher is making a play, ie receiving a thrown ball, and the play is imminent, he can block the plate. What is imminent you might say? A rule of thumb is the ball is in flight, directly at the catcher and in the air over the dirt cutout, which should be about 13 feet from the plate. If the catcher was where he needed to be to catch the throw and it was in flight 13 feet from the plate, then I would not rule obstruction. The block, the catch and the tag would have to be bang, bang, bang. It if was block, pause, catch, tag then maybe obstruction is the correct call.

Everything here is true, but there's yet another way this is not OBS. If the blocking occurred too early (earlier than in the quoted post), but the runner did not alter his path, then F2 still did not obstruct. Remember that you have to have two things for obstruction - a fielder in a position that causes a runner to react (assuming no imminent play) AND a runner that actually does react (whether by his own will or by contact).

[btdt]

Catcher blocks R3, THEN catches throw and tags runner out.


Catcher blocks R3 ... then catches throw...... obstruction all day long

[btdt]

Catcher blocks R3, then catches ball ...... obstruction all day long in my judgement

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by btdt

Catcher blocks R3, then catches ball ...... obstruction all day long in my judgement

Go back and read DG's post again.

[tarheelcoach]

Originally Posted by DG

If the catcher is making a play, ie receiving a thrown ball, and the play is imminent, he can block the plate. What is imminent you might say? A rule of thumb is the ball is in flight, directly at the catcher and in the air over the dirt cutout, which should be about 13 feet from the plate. If the catcher was where he needed to be to catch the throw and it was in flight 13 feet from the plate, then I would not rule obstruction. The block, the catch and the tag would have to be bang, bang, bang. It if was block, pause, catch, tag then maybe obstruction is the correct call.

Based on this, I would say the umpire made a very good call. Very close where the throw was when the catcher blocked, but in that situation I would figure that the umpire would err on the side of caution in making that call.
Incidentally, the ball was hit up the middle, so F6 had to go to his left to field the ball before turning and throwing home. No doubt R3 should have gone home on that - took a great play by the SS and the catcher to get him.

[3appleshigh]

I got a fantastic play, no obs. Catcher is in the act of making a play, A catch and tag of a runner, Doesn't need the ball in most rule sets, I believe NCAA he has to have ball right??

[DG]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Everything here is true, but there's yet another way this is not OBS. If the blocking occurred too early (earlier than in the quoted post), but the runner did not alter his path, then F2 still did not obstruct. Remember that you have to have two things for obstruction - a fielder in a position that causes a runner to react (assuming no imminent play) AND a runner that actually does react (whether by his own will or by contact).

Negative. If the runner slid directly into the catcher, as he should, he did not alter his path, and altering is not necessary to get an obstruction call. It if was block, pause, catch, tag then obstruction is the correct call.

[DG]

Originally Posted by btdt

Catcher blocks R3, then catches ball ...... obstruction all day long in my judgement

This is a NFHS question, not LL, not NCAA.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by DG

Negative. If the runner slid directly into the catcher, as he should, he did not alter his path, and altering is not necessary to get an obstruction call. It if was block, pause, catch, tag then obstruction is the correct call.

Maybe this is just miscommunication.

If by "block" in that sentence, you mean the catcher was in the path of the runner and the runner contacted the catcher, then I agree with you - OBS. (And I would note that the runner's path DID alter - it was altered by the contact with the catcher).

If by "block", you merely mean that the catcher was in the path - but had no effect on the runner, then this is NOT OBS.

We were pretty much taught that if the fielder does not have the ball it is obstruction. "Imminent" is too vague and leaves too much discretion. If you always call it that way, if nothing else you'll be consistent.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

We were pretty much taught that if the fielder does not have the ball it is obstruction. "Imminent" is too vague and leaves too much discretion. If you always call it that way, if nothing else you'll be consistent.

Taught by whom - when?

OBR, FED, NCAA, LL? They all use different interpretations.

"Imminent" is too vague and leaves too much discretion.

That's why you get the big bucks - to decide those things. Get some advice from more experienced folks and learn how to call it.

If you always call it that way, if nothing else you'll be consistent.

But often wrong.